I started to think about 'the few' and what would happen to them under a Corbyn Labour Government.

One meaning of the slogan would be that Labour would not favour the few but would do its best for everyone.

]]>https://marginalseat.com/not-the-few/6126bf2a-9964-4401-80d0-8de598f23108Tue, 06 Nov 2018 17:47:26 GMTWhat does Labour's slogan For the many, not the few, mean?

I started to think about 'the few' and what would happen to them under a Corbyn Labour Government.

One meaning of the slogan would be that Labour would not favour the few but would do its best for everyone.

But I started to think that that wasn't what was intended. It doesn't say 'for everyone', it says 'for the many, not the few.

Well, it's open to different interpretations. Maybe. So I researched the origin of the slogan.

In May 2017, In Defence Of Marxism reported that in a speech given in Whitechapel on April 29th, Jeremy Corbyn launched For the many, not the few as the Labour Party's slogan for the general election.

In August 2017, Jacqueline Mulhallen reported that at the end of the election campaign on June 7, 2017, Corbyn gave a speech in Islington which ended with his quoting the following stanza:

Rise like lions after slumber
In unfathomable number
Shake your chains to earth like dew
Which in sleep have fallen on you –
Ye are many, they are few.

This is the last stanza from The Masque Of Anarchy written by Percy Bysshe Shelley in 1819 to commemorate the Peterloo massacre.

Peterloo happened at St Peter's Field, Manchester, on 16 August 1819, when cavalry charged into a crowd of thousands who were demanding parliamentary reform.

The hussars with their sabres killed fifteen people and injured hundreds.

The Masque Of Anarchy is a long poem, nearly 400 lines, but it is essentially simple. It is about tyrants, and the overthrow of tyrants.

Labour under Corbyn sees 'them and us'. He may be right. There are different ways to look at history.

In 1920s Russia the few were put up against the wall. They weren't part of the 'us'. They never could be. They would always be dangerous tyrants or tyrants in waiting.

So act against the few for the benefit of the many.

That is the meaning of the Labour Party's slogan under Corbyn.

I read that Mike Leigh has brought out a film to commemorate the Peterloo Massacre.

I thought it was a coincidence until I read about the origin of Labour's slogan.

Now I am pretty sure that when Corbyn says for the many not the few it doesn't mean the many includes the few because we're all under one roof.

What it means is definitely not for the few, definitely not for the few to the extent that if this were 1920s Russia (which of course it's not) then we would put the few up against the wall. We would do it because the few are on the other side of some great divide.

He means they would do it because the few are the opponents who oppress us and there's no room for them and there's no rehabilitation for them.

He means they would do it because there is no bringing them into the fold. There is no making them part of us because we are against them because they oppress us.

So when Corbyn says for the many not the few he means you better watch out you few because that's what we're going to do. When we are in power we are going to oppress you.

So what's wrong with that if the few have been oppressing the many?

Well, because it's not true. After five years of a coalition Government, who did we vote in? The Conservatives.

All those people oppressed by the bedroom tax; all those people with their benefits cut; all the food banks.

Didn't our hearts go out to them? Didn't we all want to pull together?

No.

It was I'm alright, Jack.

If there is no 'we' then Margaret Thatcher had it right. There is no society. There are only people desperate to be seen as better off than the poor buggers beneath them.

Maybe.

I think Corbyn doesn't care. He just wants to get into power so he can start dismantling banks and all the instruments of oppression as he sees them.

Ah, if we were all angels who would never take advantage of our situation if we had the chance.

And if that is wrong, and we can all pull together, then deciding that the few are the irredeemable few is deeply unpleasant.

How I Vote

Were it not for Corbyn and McDonnell - the hidden men - then I would vote Labour.

As it is, I cannot.

I see the advice given by A C Grayling as the only option.

That is, to vote tactically for the Lib Dems as the only party openly pro European - and send a message to the main parties that their path is not one I want to take.

]]>Reported News:

The stationery chain Paperchase has come under mounting pressure after one of its main credit insurers reduced cover after a slump in profits.

Euler Hermes has refused to cover new contracts with Paperchase’s suppliers, although the retailer’s existing agreements with suppliers are unaffected.

The stationery chain Paperchase has come under mounting pressure after one of its main credit insurers reduced cover after a slump in profits.

Euler Hermes has refused to cover new contracts with Paperchase’s suppliers, although the retailer’s existing agreements with suppliers are unaffected.

The move follows a similar row over insurance cover at the struggling department store chain Debenhams, which has fought off claims that it is about to go bust after it was refused cover for new contracts. A withdrawal or reduction in cover can mean that suppliers demand payment upfront, putting a strain on cash reserves.

So one of Paperchase's credit insurers has reduced supplier insurance cover after a slump in Paperchase's profits.

The purpose of this insurance is to allow Paperchase to get good on credit rather than paying cash upfront.

The insurance reassure suppliers that if Paperchase doesn't pay for then the insurer with its deep pockets will pick up the tab.

With insurance cover reduced or withdrawn, suppliers are likely insist on payment upfront.

That puts a strain on Paperchase's cash, which doesn't help if it has already had a slump in profits.

Insurance cover protects against two things. One of them is intended and the other is not intended.

The intention is that it protects suppliers against the risk of Paperchase's debtors going bad.

However, it also allows the mismanagement of Paperchase to run on.

The tendency to use the knowledge that someone else will pick up the tab if all else fails must surely encourage risk.

How can a supplier or indeed the insurance company distinguish between risky debtors and mismanagement?

It does it in the same way that a bank decides whether to lend to a company or let it run an overdraft.

If the bank does its job properly then it spends time to scrutinise the company, to get to know it and understand the management.

I wonder whether insurance companies do that? In this fast-moving world, I cannot imagine they do.

]]>I had this idea that Mr Skripal wasn't a retired spy at all, but an active agent.

I thought maybe he received a message at a dead drop and that whoever sent it to him, decided to end the relationship by killing him.

The reason I thought this was a

]]>https://marginalseat.com/perfume-bottle/a308c4ad-1acb-4de2-a242-af981167013aTue, 24 Jul 2018 21:16:54 GMTI had this idea that Mr Skripal wasn't a retired spy at all, but an active agent.

I thought maybe he received a message at a dead drop and that whoever sent it to him, decided to end the relationship by killing him.

The reason I thought this was a credible scenario was that the container had not been found. Where would it be if not purposely hidden by Mr. Skripal after he took out the message that was addressed to him?

Then Charlie Rowley found the container and thinking it was perfume gave it to his partner Dawn Sturgess, and the two of them were poisoned.

Could it be that the police would be unable to find the container? After all, Mr. Rowley found it. The police would surely have found it, wouldn't they - unless it was well hidden?

Except now Charlie Rowley says that what he and his girlfriend were exposed to was in a glass bottle with a plastic dispenser in a cardboard box with a plastic moulding.

That doesn't seem like the perfect object within which to place a message. But then, maybe it is exactly the right kind of container.

I don't think this detail is an invention put out by Mr. Rowley at the coaching of the Security Services. If that were the case, how could they control what he might say in the future?

But if it is true that the poison was in a bottle of what seemed like it was perfume, then are we to believe that the poisoners just dumped the bottle somewhere it could be found?

Are we to believe they dumped it under a bush, or somewhere that only an ex junkie would go looking?

If he found it, then anyone could have. The police could have - they devoted enough time to looking for it.

How inept would the poisoner with this sophisticated poison have to be to leave it were it could be found?

Still, the question remains as to who wanted to kill Mr. Skripal and for what reason.

Of course, these are just my thought processes running on and trying to make sense of what had happened.

Note

The possibilities I dreamed up about Mr. Skripal are a product of my imagination. They live in - a what if universe.

They are not intended to cast any aspersions on, raise doubts or questions about, or be in any way related to the real facts about any person living or dead.

The people I am talking about are just corralled in my thoughts.

If I write any more of these imaginings, the same will apply. I might, for example, imagine that Michael Gove is working for the Russians and that Boris Johnson is an agent of the Turkish Government working for the eventual restoration of the Ottoman Empire.

]]>In his book Sapiens, Yuval Noah Harari makes the case for why some European powers failed to prosper while others prospered.

He writes that Spain failed because the Crown was autocratic and simply cancelled its obligations to pay its debts.

Britain, on the other hand, prospered because its overseas ventures

]]>https://marginalseat.com/cheap-money-hard-brexit/d090a7de-8c77-41a9-b1c6-5a6e38a750beSun, 22 Jul 2018 14:51:38 GMTIn his book Sapiens, Yuval Noah Harari makes the case for why some European powers failed to prosper while others prospered.

He writes that Spain failed because the Crown was autocratic and simply cancelled its obligations to pay its debts.

Britain, on the other hand, prospered because its overseas ventures were led by merchants who paid their debts.

Britain earned a reputation as a safe place to lend, and so its interest rates remained low.

Through the centuries and up to and through all the troubles of the 2008 crash and its aftermath, Britain has been able to borrow at very low rates.

All that could fall apart in a heartbeat if Britain walks out of the EU without resolving its obligations.

Think on that, ye merry Brexiters.

]]>Once the politicians held up the Brexit vote as binding rather than advisory, they opened the door.

They opened the door to creating something powerful and dangerous in the minds of the electorate.

It made the electorate believe that the people rule.

It was not like when you vote in

]]>https://marginalseat.com/an-electorate-with-a-taste-for-blood/246d774d-2416-4bf3-8535-78b636914617Mon, 09 Jul 2018 08:31:00 GMTOnce the politicians held up the Brexit vote as binding rather than advisory, they opened the door.

They opened the door to creating something powerful and dangerous in the minds of the electorate.

It made the electorate believe that the people rule.

It was not like when you vote in an election, moved along tramlines, only able to vote for the parties that exist.

It was a real vote, a people's vote, with real decisions and real consequences.

Oh Dear

If you are in Government, how do you deal with that threat?

This is what you do.

You do not move forward as though acting on the bidding of the electorate.

You move back and forth, you negotiate more than you need, you make a big show of getting stuck in the mire or all that political wrangling. You keep it up for months and months.

The result is that electorate's heads are on swivel-sticks, mesmerised, uncertain.

And the power shifts back to the political classes, surrendered by the electorate who are too dazed to know what their power meant.

Where Does Labour Stand On This

That's a question. Jeremy Corbyn seems outclassed, sidelined, unable to deal with how this works.

He has a long game if he gets into power on Island Britain, when it is out of the EU. But he doesn't seem to know how to play the game.

Has the electorate has seen past Labour to some vision over the horizon of piratical Britain.

There's the vision of Britain. See it? See it swinging its sword across the oceans to conquer trade deals worldwide.

We still love the merchant venturers: We still love the Tories.

]]>Newspaper stories about Corbyn around the topic of anti-Semitism within the Labour Party fall into two camps - the sly or the stupid.

The authors of the sly stories know that Corbyn is anti-Semitic. Their intent is to put out an implicit message that he is innocent but others are

]]>https://marginalseat.com/corbyn-control/7cba480c-62de-4d76-a0a8-f5e45e56a6bcThu, 12 Apr 2018 14:11:01 GMTNewspaper stories about Corbyn around the topic of anti-Semitism within the Labour Party fall into two camps - the sly or the stupid.

The authors of the sly stories know that Corbyn is anti-Semitic. Their intent is to put out an implicit message that he is innocent but others are guilty.

That gets him off the hook and gives him a free hand to do something about antisemitism in his Party - or not do, as the case may be.

The authors of the stupid stories simply don't know that Corbyn is anti-Semitic and they are being played or are thoughtless.

You will have read the recent stories about he attended a celebration conducted by a Jewish Labour group that is anti-Israel.

You may think this was just ill-considered of him.

Or you may think that it is Israel that Corbyn objects to, and that he is not anti-Semitic.

But you would be wrong.

Look at the articles he wrote as a a long-time contributor to The Morning Star newspaper.

In article after article, Corbyn makes a pretty damning case against Israel – everything from screaming warplanes to snipers shooting old men in wheelchairs. And woven in is praise for Hamas.

I went through all of the articles he wrote for the Morning Star and I found one article critical of Saudi Arabia and one article of his that was critical of what was happening in the Congo.

But the greatest number of articles by far, are about Israel and critical of Israel.

And that’s what tells me that he is, under all that righteous anger, anti-Semitic.

He sees nothing good in Israel, only something to condemn.

And by only writing about Israel, over and over again about Israel, and not about all the other hotspots around the world, I know that his condemnation is lopsided.

It is his project, his hobby horse.

He says at some points that he is right to speak about it because of Britain’s role in helping to establish Israel. He says it, but he conveniently forgets how Britain was involved in colonies and the establishing of independence worldwide.

What he writes is a smokescreen for his hatred of Jews. He may not be able to admit even to himself that he is antisemitic.

It is possible that he has dressed it up in something else and hidden it from himself.

I doubt it.

I call Corbyn and McDonnell the hooded men. You can't see what they are thinking. You can work it out from what they say and don't say, and what they do and don't do.

And I think I know the game plan, but that's another story.

My point is that Corbyn is too wise not to know what he is - an anti-Semit.

]]>Corbyn commented that the artist Mear One was in good company because as great an artist as Diego Rivera had his mural excised from history because it depicted Lenin.

Now Corbyn claims he commented on Mear One's mural without looking at the mural closely. And that had he done so,

]]>https://marginalseat.com/corbyns-comment-lends-the-lie-to-his-apology/999e7634-f69e-453b-a8d5-a2cfdcea6ae2Sun, 25 Mar 2018 17:09:27 GMTCorbyn commented that the artist Mear One was in good company because as great an artist as Diego Rivera had his mural excised from history because it depicted Lenin.

Now Corbyn claims he commented on Mear One's mural without looking at the mural closely. And that had he done so, he wouldn't have made the comment he made.

He wouldn't have done so, he says, because the mural is anti-Semitic.

I just saw the mural on the Andrew Marr show, and Jeremy Corbyn's claim that he didn't look closely at Mear One's mural and didn't see it was anti-Semitic is unbelievable.

On the Andrew Marr show, Tom Watson claimed that Corbyn only saw a small version of the image on Facebook, and therefore didn't see the detail.

Well, let's think about it.

Corbyn had to see enough of Mear One's mural to see the content or he could not have commented and made the comparison with Diego Rivera as he did.

So to claim that he saw clearly that the mural was about a New World Order playing monopoly with the lives of poor people but didn't see how the main characters in the mural were drawn is disingenuous.

On the hardly credible view that he didn't look closely enough (as he claims), then he lacked the common sense to look closely before making an expressly political comment.

]]>In an article in the Guarian today under the headline 'Russia highly likely to be behind poisoning of spy, says Theresa May', the Prime Minister is quoted as saying:

“This attempted murder using a weapons-grade nerve agent in a British town was not just a crime against the Skripals.

“It

]]>https://marginalseat.com/innocent-civilians/3e4feba9-6252-4def-a335-9b83934a4845Mon, 12 Mar 2018 19:28:54 GMTIn an article in the Guarian today under the headline 'Russia highly likely to be behind poisoning of spy, says Theresa May', the Prime Minister is quoted as saying:

“This attempted murder using a weapons-grade nerve agent in a British town was not just a crime against the Skripals.

“It was an indiscriminate and reckless act against the United Kingdom, putting the lives of innocent civilians at risk. And we will not tolerate such a brazen attempt to murder innocent civilians on our soil. I commend this statement to the House.”

I assume that every full stop and comma of the Prime Minister's addresses to the House is pored over to make sure she says exactly what is intended - no more and no less.

Which makes me wonder at the use of the words innocent civilians

Are the Skripals not innocent civilians? Is Mr Skripal's daughter at least, not an innocent civilian?

]]>The papers are reporting that Best For Britain has mounted a legal challenge to force the Government to concede that a second EU referendum is legally necessary.

The claim is based on the argument that the 2011 European Union Act guarantees a new referendum if the Government seeks to remain

]]>https://marginalseat.com/untitled-3/b9410f7e-ebd4-4cb9-bd17-ffd76191c89eSun, 11 Mar 2018 13:50:09 GMTThe papers are reporting that Best For Britain has mounted a legal challenge to force the Government to concede that a second EU referendum is legally necessary.

The claim is based on the argument that the 2011 European Union Act guarantees a new referendum if the Government seeks to remain part of EU bodies such as the European Medicines Agency.

The Government counter-arguments is that the EU Withdrawal Bill revokes the 2011 European Union Act.

The Best For Britain argument is that the EU Withdrawal Bill is just that, a Bill - and not law and that the UK is negotiating with the EU under existing British law - hence the trigger for a second referendum.

It sounds weak, but who knows - maybe it will be the hole in the dam that upsets things.

Who is Best For Britain
I see that the CEO of Best For Britain (Eloise Todd) writes for the Guardian. I don't know anything about the Board members. The registrar is Giles Norris and there is a DDG search that refers to an article he wrote on their site - but it doesn't link.

]]>You've gotta laugh... see highlighted section at the end of this quote detailing serious allegations against Russia.

Defending the global system

Our starting point must be to strengthen the commitment, purpose and unity of those allies and partners with whom we have built this order.

Central to this must be

]]>https://marginalseat.com/theresa-mays-speech-to-the-lord-mayors-banquet-2017/c7afc475-28de-4d99-8723-a3195f796a00Tue, 14 Nov 2017 18:26:02 GMTYou've gotta laugh... see highlighted section at the end of this quote detailing serious allegations against Russia.

Defending the global system

Our starting point must be to strengthen the commitment, purpose and unity of those allies and partners with whom we have built this order.

Central to this must be the enduring strength of our transatlantic partnership and our relationships with our European allies.

The role of the United States in shaping the global order is as vital now as it has ever been.

Of course we will not always agree on each and every course of action. But underpinning this relationship is an alliance of values and interests between our peoples which has been a force for good in the world for generations – and must continue to be so.

The same is true of our relations with our European partners as we leave the EU. For we remain a European nation – our history marked by shared experience, our societies shaped by common values, our economies interdependent, and our security indivisible.

As I said in my speech in Florence, the UK will remain unconditionally committed to maintaining Europe’s security.

And the comprehensive new economic partnership we seek will underpin our shared commitment to open economies and free societies in the face of those who seek to undermine them.

Chief among those today, of course, is Russia.

In a recent speech President Putin said that while the interests of states do not always coincide, strategic gains cannot be made at the expense of others. When a state fails to observe universal rules of conduct and pursues its interests at any cost, it will provoke resistance and disputes will become unpredictable and dangerous.

I say to President Putin, I agree. But it is Russia’s actions which threaten the international order on which we all depend.

I want to be clear about the scale and nature of these actions.

Russia’s illegal annexation of Crimea was the first time since the Second World War that one sovereign nation has forcibly taken territory from another in Europe. Since then, Russia has fomented conflict in the Donbas, repeatedly violated the national airspace of several European countries, and mounted a sustained campaign of cyber espionage and disruption. This has included meddling in elections, and hacking the Danish Ministry of Defence and the Bundestag, among many others.

It is seeking to weaponise information. Deploying its state-run media organisations to plant fake stories and photo-shopped images in an attempt to sow discord in the West and undermine our institutions.

So I have a very simple message for Russia.

We know what you are doing. And you will not succeed. Because you underestimate the resilience of our democracies, the enduring attraction of free and open societies, and the commitment of Western nations to the alliances that bind us.

The UK will do what is necessary to protect ourselves, and work with our allies to do likewise.

That is why we are driving reform of NATO so this vital alliance is better able to deter and counter hostile Russian activity. It is why we have stepped up our military and economic support to Ukraine.

It is why we are strengthening our cyber security and looking at how we tighten our financial regimes to ensure the profits of corruption cannot flow from Russia into the UK.

So we will take the necessary actions to counter Russian activity. But this is not where we want to be – and not the relationship with Russia we want.

We do not want to return to the Cold War, or to be in a state of perpetual confrontation.

So whilst we must beware, we also want to engage – which is why in the coming months the Foreign Secretary will be visiting Moscow.

For there is another way.

Many of us here looked at a post-Soviet Russia with hope.

Because we know that a strong and prosperous Russia which plays by the rules would be in the interests of the United Kingdom, Europe and the world.

As a Permanent Member of the UN Security Council, Russia has the reach and the responsibility to play a vital role in promoting international stability.

Russia can, and I hope one day will, choose this different path.

But for as long as Russia does not, we will act together to protect our interests and the international order on which they depend.

Here is the full text of Theresa May's speech to the Lord Mayor's Banquet 2017:

]]>I have been saying for the past several years that the laudable attitude of liberal governments has a breaking point. And that breaking point is when it is in my back yard, as it were.

David Cameron was quick to applaud people in the eastern part of Libya who wanted

]]>https://marginalseat.com/yorkshire-self-determination/ab8023ce-13cf-4337-b06d-50dc18e43a5eMon, 09 Oct 2017 09:49:18 GMTI have been saying for the past several years that the laudable attitude of liberal governments has a breaking point. And that breaking point is when it is in my back yard, as it were.

David Cameron was quick to applaud people in the eastern part of Libya who wanted self-determination. And I said he might not be so quick to back self-determination if it was Yorkshire that was asking for it.

Well life has come to imitate art. Quoting from the Daily Express today

Yorkshire will push for more autonomy from Westminster including a mayor for the entire region - similar to those in London and Manchester.

Party leader Stewart Arnold said: “Something like an assembly or a parliament which is directly elected with fair votes, and reflects the kind of diversity of opinion which is obvious in somewhere like Yorkshire.”

In the wake of the recent Catalonian referendum on independence Mr Arnold again called for freedom for Yorkshire.

He said: "Not surprisingly, we in the Yorkshire Party believe in self-determination, whether it's for Yorkshire or Catalonia.

"After all, the UK government would never bully and intimidate those wanting self determination in this country in the same way - would they?"

]]>The Guardian reports that Theresa May has denied that she cried after the speech she gave at the Conference.

She is reported as saying:

One minute journalists are accusing me of being an ice maiden or a robot, then they claim I’m a weeping woman in dire need of

]]>https://marginalseat.com/untitled/800fd4d9-1c04-4b14-b909-bb425899eaaeSun, 08 Oct 2017 07:23:30 GMTThe Guardian reports that Theresa May has denied that she cried after the speech she gave at the Conference.

She is reported as saying:

One minute journalists are accusing me of being an ice maiden or a robot, then they claim I’m a weeping woman in dire need of a good night’s sleep. The truth is, my feelings can be hurt, like everyone else, but I am pretty resilient. I am not someone who gives up.

That's a pretty good comeback to respond that she cannot be called both icy and fragile, and it makes her seem more human.

Actually, a person can be both icy and fragile - but it doesn't speak well of their mental balance if they are. In fact, it could describe a classic manipulator who suffers from delusions.

And yes it is laudable to not give up, provided the person has their head screwed on and knows what they are doing.

Her miscalculation over the decision to hold the last election says otherwise.

]]>The knives are out for Theresa May because she coughed and spluttered through her Conference speech.

She drank water. The glass reminded me of the poisoned chalice she was handed when she accepted the leadership of the Conservative party.

Did she have a cough. OK, she had a cough. But

]]>https://marginalseat.com/the-gleam-in-the-eye-of-theresa-may/a44dc67b-9a59-412e-bf25-618393ed3f7bSat, 07 Oct 2017 11:30:48 GMTThe knives are out for Theresa May because she coughed and spluttered through her Conference speech.

She drank water. The glass reminded me of the poisoned chalice she was handed when she accepted the leadership of the Conservative party.

Did she have a cough. OK, she had a cough. But was she also nervous?

She was nervous That's what the critics are saying. And nerves of steel are what the job needs; not a public showing of nervousness. That's what the critics say. And they would know because they were taught that in the Public Schools to which they went.

No. She's always had nerves. She trembles as she speaks.

Nice people also tremble. Nice, competent people also tremble.

Nerves aren't her problem. Her problem is that she speaks to a nonexistent audience. She cannot connect with the audiences in front of her.

Our problem is that she is manic. The reason she will not give up is because she believes she has a responsibility to complete her mission.

And I fear that as she loses her grip on reality she will tighten her grip on her sense of mission.

That sense of mission and what is right and proper is what led her to call an election.

I'd really like to know who suggested she call one, who she listened to, and what their agenda was.

]]>In answer to 'no problem'.

So you call customer service and tell them that the delivery didn't arrive, or you take your sandwich back to the counter because the wrapper says it's tuna but the contents are ham - and the reply is 'No problem', and they deal with the

So you call customer service and tell them that the delivery didn't arrive, or you take your sandwich back to the counter because the wrapper says it's tuna but the contents are ham - and the reply is 'No problem', and they deal with the error.

Except it is their error and they have no locus, no standing to be saying it is no problem.

It is a problem and they caused it.

So after the zillionth time this happens, you mention it. You explain that the phrase is inappropriate to the situation.

And their eyes cross with confusion because they don't understand.

When you probe a bit deeper they tell you it is just an expression that has no meaning other than as an acknowledgement.

You ask them how they would feel if the situation were reversed.

How would they feel if they got the wrong sandwich and had to stand up and leave their coffee on the table, (hoping a waiter wouldn't scoop it up, thinking they'd left) and then break into the queue and suffer the looks from the other waiting customers.

How would they feel if they were met with a 'no problem'?

Sometimes, some people get it.

]]>Bank Of England Financial Stability Report, June 2017

To ensure that the financial system has the resilience it needs, the Financial Policy Committee is increasing the UK countercyclical capital buffer rate to 0.5%, from 0%. Absent a material change in the outlook, and consistent with its stated policy for

To ensure that the financial system has the resilience it needs, the Financial Policy Committee is increasing the UK countercyclical capital buffer rate to 0.5%, from 0%. Absent a material change in the outlook, and consistent with its stated policy for a standard risk environment and of moving gradually, the FPC expects to increase the rate to 1% at its November meeting.

The countercyclical capital buffer guide is a metric that provides a guide for the CCB rate based on the gap between the ratio of credit to GDP and its long-term trend.

The countercyclical capital buffer guide suggests that a credit gap of 2% or less equates to a CCyB rate of 0% and a credit gap of 10% or higher equates to a CCyB rate of 2.5%.

The latest comment mentions the risk that a disorderly Brexit could bring to the system.

There are pockets of risk that warrant vigilance. Consumer credit has increased rapidly. Lending conditions in the mortgage market are becoming easier. Lenders may be placing undue weight on the recent performance of loans in benign conditions.

Exit negotiations between the United Kingdom and the European Union have begun. There are a range of possible outcomes for, and paths to, the United Kingdom’s withdrawal from the EU.

Some possible global risks have not crystallised, though financial vulnerabilities in China remain pronounced. Measures of market volatility and the valuation of some assets — such as corporate bonds and UK commercial real estate — do not appear to reflect fully the downside risks that are implied by very low long-term interest rates.

Credit to GDP has been rising sharply since mid 2015 but is still historically very low - lower than at any time since 1966 when the graph starts. So why the added caution?